SCIENTISTS: We have to cut consumption to prevent global warming!! OTHER SCIENTIST: [invents a way to remove carbon in the atmosphere without destroying global economy] SCIENTISTS: No, not like thathttp://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-warn-negative-emissions-moral-hazard-20785 …
-
-
Well, moral hazard "as a concept" exhibiting traits of moral hazard would not, IMO, indicate that the term does not describe an actual phenomenon
-
the useful context that I think of for the term "moral hazard" is with financial risk. it is a moral hazard to bail out bankrupt companies because it incentives behavior that harms others (unmanaged systemic risk). I think the climatologists here were thinking of that.
-
carbon emissions are a form of systemic risk. they might be positing that carbon sequestration technologies are a kind of carbon risk bailout. I disagree with that assessment but I can see why they tried to use the term as a clumsy analogy here.
-
Well, yep, and the not-quite-joke I'm making here is that capability to argue against activities/interventions based on (often speculative) risky behavior of agents they will induce (such as the proposed hypothesis that deployment of carbon sequestration will
-
undermine clean-energy and emission-reduction efforts) itself constitutes a kind of lowkey "meta-ish" moral hazard, because agents (researchers) are now inclined to make arguments about hypothetical behaviors carbon sequestration might encourage instead of, i dunno, actually
-
studying those effects. I think that one can find a lot of "moral hazard" claims that fit this amusing pattern.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
can't read this without hearing the voice of Morpheus
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.